Skip to main content

Table 2 Correlation between each method and motor function (muscle strength and physical performance) test

From: Evaluation of muscle quality and quantity for the assessment of sarcopenia using mid-thigh computed tomography: a cohort study

  CSA BIA DXA CTV
r 95%CI r 95%CI r 95%CI r 95%CI
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
Muscle strength
 Knee extension strength 0.60 0.56 0.83 0.391* 0.28 0.55 0.39* 0.27 0.54 0.26 0.13 0.40
 Grip strength 0.44 0.34 0.61 0.29 0.16 0.43 0.39 0.28 0.55 0.26 0.13 0.40
Physical performance
 Single-leg standing 0.24 0.11 0.36 0.18 0.05 0.31 0.20 0.07 0.33 0.24 0.11 0.37
 Walking speed 0.34 0.21 0.45 0.22† 0.09 0.35 0.29 0.17 0.41 0.43 0.31 0.53
 Standing up test −0.20 −0.33 −0.07 0.01*† −0.12 0.15 0.05*† −0.08 0.19 −0.40 − 0.51 − 0.28
 TUG − 0.38 − 049 − 0.26 −0.27 − 0.40 −0.14 − 0.30 −0.42 − 0.18 −0.34 − 0.45 −0.21
 SPPB (total) 0.36 0.24 0.48 0.23 0.10 0.36 0.26 0.13 0.38 0.35 0.22 0.46
 Two-step test 0.33 0.21 0.45 0.24 0.11 0.37 0.31 0.19 0.43 0.40 0.28 0.51
  1. CSA cross-sectional area of quadriceps femoris measured by computed tomography (CT) scan, CTV CT attenuation value of quadriceps femoris measured by CT scan, r Pearson’s partial correlation coefficient for muscle strengths and Spearman’s partial correlation coefficient for muscle performances, BIA Skeletal muscle Mass Index (SMI) determined by bioelectrical impedance analysis, DXA SMI determined by dual energy X-ray absorption
  2. *P < 0.05 compared with CSA, †P < 0.05 compared with CTV. * or† means that CSA or CTV has significantly stronger correlation than the value. CSA showed the most association with muscle strength, whereas CTV showed the most association with physical performance